Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
**Key Takeaways**
1. **Heightened Political Volatility and Policy Uncertainty:** President Trump’s post-midterm defiance, marked by questioning election integrity and elevating confrontational figures like Stephen Miller, signals continued legislative gridlock and a reliance on executive action, creating a persistent risk premium across market assets.
2. **Increased Regulatory and Trade Friction:** The administration’s likely pivot towards more aggressive, unilateral policies on immigration and trade, championed by Miller, points to potential new tariffs, supply chain disruptions, and enhanced regulatory scrutiny, impacting multinational corporations and export-oriented sectors.
3. **Erosion of Investor Confidence:** The ongoing political instability, coupled with the prospect of an antagonistic relationship between the White House and Congress, risks deterring both domestic and foreign investment, potentially dampening economic growth forecasts and prolonging market apprehension.
Last Wednesday’s Wall Street relief rally, which briefly lifted equities and eased bond yields after initial indications that Donald Trump acknowledged a smoother post-midterm landscape, was something of a first. It represented the market’s collective sigh of relief at the prospect of a potentially less confrontational political environment, an expectation that a divided government might temper the more unpredictable elements of the current administration. Investors hoped for a return to conventional governance, perhaps even an opening for bipartisan compromise on critical fiscal and infrastructural issues. Now, with the President’s latest pronouncements, that fleeting optimism looks increasingly like a mirage. “Does anybody really believe this ‘Election’ was honest?” the president posted on Monday, injecting a fresh wave of political instability and uncertainty into an already fragile market. The answer, from a market perspective, is that while the political class may be divided, the vast majority of economic actors and institutions rely on the integrity of democratic processes for stability. Except, it seems, for the one who matters most in setting the tone for the executive branch. Given a choice between political grace and a defensive, defiant posture, Trump seems disposed to a bloody last stand, a stance that has historically translated into heightened market volatility and a cautious retreat for capital.
Posterity will scratch its head over Trump’s hinge moments, and so too will market strategists. After 2024, he had a unique opportunity to cement a Republican multiracial working-class coalition, a demographic shift that could have profound implications for future economic policy, from trade protection to social safety nets. Instead, he kept denying the very affordability complaints that had won him their vote, thereby missing a chance to pivot towards more populist economic policies that could have resonated broadly. Now, in the aftermath of a challenging midterm, he has the chance to salvage his presidency through modest concessions, perhaps even extending an olive branch to a newly empowered Congress. With a modicum of political skill, he could potentially split the Democrats on key legislative initiatives and begin to restore his party’s long-term fortunes. But as markets have learned repeatedly over the past years, that is not how Trump plays the game, and this predictable unpredictability is what injects a persistent risk premium into asset valuations.
His elevation of Stephen Miller to a more central role, reportedly because he supposedly ‘gets things done,’ is less a reshuffle of talent and more a middle finger to the electorate’s call for moderation. From a market perspective, Miller’s specialism in presidential rule without regard for Congress or the courts signals an increased likelihood of executive overreach, particularly in areas like immigration and trade, which directly impact labor markets, supply chains, and international corporate operations. He is the unmasked face of aggressive immigrant deportations, a champion of what some interpret as history’s “iron laws” of might makes right, and an advocate for an unbound US presidency. In other words, Miller embodies the aggressive, unilateral policy stance that Americans just signalled discomfort with at the ballot box. This appointment is a clear indication that the administration intends to double down on an “America First” agenda, potentially escalating trade disputes and regulatory hurdles that could impact multinational corporations, technology firms reliant on global talent, and manufacturing sectors.
You could almost hear Washington’s collective groan when Trump announced Miller’s new role last Friday, a sound that reverberated through trading floors as analysts recalibrated their risk models. Shortly afterwards, the embattled US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, posted “patriots in control,” which is a rallying cry of QAnon, the far-right conspiracy movement. “Stand. Fight. Defend the Republic,” Hegseth added next to a picture of himself with Miller. Such rhetoric, emanating from high-level administration officials, does more than just inflame political tensions; it erodes institutional stability and investor confidence in the predictability of policy-making. Anyone who was hoping that Trump would transition into the role of a lame duck and not an angry one, seeking to restore some semblance of political normalcy, has been put on explicit notice. This confrontational stance suggests a continued environment of legislative battles, potential government shutdowns, and an ongoing struggle to pass critical fiscal legislation, all of which weigh negatively on long-term investment decisions.
Yet, Trump and Miller will find it much harder than before the midterms to get anything done, especially on the legislative front. Senior Republicans, now less tethered to the White House and more attuned to their own political survival, are acting with far less fear of the executive branch than they were a week ago. This shift in congressional dynamics, while potentially leading to greater legislative gridlock, might also prevent some of the more radical policy proposals from gaining traction. Courts already blocked key Trump executive orders during his period of peak supremacy, often citing procedural or constitutional grounds. They are even less likely to be cowed after last week’s electoral sweep, emboldened by a clearer mandate from the public. With the big exception of foreign policy, where the executive retains significant latitude, whatever Trump tried before will be more difficult to pull off now. This suggests a period of heightened judicial scrutiny over executive actions, adding another layer of regulatory uncertainty for businesses.
That legislative impotence will only increase his rage against the dying of the light, fueling a feedback loop of political theatre and market anxiety. It is safe to predict that talk of removing him for “incapacity” via the 25th Amendment will get louder, an idea that, while politically charged, carries immediate implications for market stability. As time and Trump’s architectural plans march on, calls for his removal may become deafening. But the prospect is a chimera. From a market perspective, any such move would trigger massive short-term volatility, but the unlikelihood of its success ultimately reinforces the expectation of a full, albeit tumultuous, term. There is no chance that JD Vance, the vice-president, could persuade a majority of Trump’s cheerleading cabinet to consent to that, even if he had the guts to try, and even if Capitol Hill agreed. The political hurdles are too high, ensuring continued executive leadership, however divisive.
Trump always has the option of quitting. The best historical parallel to last week’s result was the 1974 midterm landslide that followed Richard Nixon’s post-Watergate resignation, an event that, despite initial market shock, ultimately paved the way for a period of political recalibration. Nixon’s former vice-president, Gerald Ford, pardoned him shortly thereafter. It is conceivable that Vance could convince Trump to step down by vowing to protect him through hell or high water, offering a potential shield from future legal challenges. As investigations heat up into what Democrats call the “Trump crime family,” the temptation for such a deal will surely arise. For markets, a resignation, particularly if coupled with a swift, pre-emptive pardon, could provide a moment of catharsis, removing a significant source of political uncertainty and paving the way for a more stable transition.
But resigning would contradict a lifetime of going for broke, a personal brand defined by relentless combativeness. Trump also routinely mistrusts underlings, however loyal their behaviour. Vance is no exception. His ambition to succeed Trump depends heavily on the latter’s endorsement, creating a complex political calculus. Yet, any hope of converting that into a credible 2028 victory would mean eventually distancing himself from Trump’s more controversial legacies. He can hardly do both simultaneously. We should thus get used to the passive aggression that Vance showed last week when he blamed Republican defeat on an unspecified “Iran war,” an early signal of the internal tensions that will define the Republican Party’s future and, by extension, its policy platform.
The coming months will be a two-front Trump battle: against his perceived enemies in Congress and the media, and against some of his nominal friends within his own party. On one side, there is dynamic tension inside the White House, with the battle for Trump’s succession already starting under his roof. It could turn Shakespearean, creating further distractions from governance and policy implementation. On the other is Trump’s coming showdown with Congress over budgets, investigations, and legislative priorities. In theory, nothing could be simpler than joining cause with Vance while extending an olive branch to Capitol Hill. Both goals would be advanced by Trump dismissing Hegseth and winding down Operation Epic Fury, a fictional reference that underscores the author’s belief that a more conciliatory approach is warranted. Any such actions would be greeted as statesmanlike, and critically, as a significant positive signal by financial markets.
But that is not the path that Trump is signalling. In a CBS interview aired on Sunday, he was pressed on whether he could forgive his enemies even if he faced God’s judgment. “I don’t want to go to hell,” Trump said. “[But] I do hate some of my enemies and I always will.” This uncompromising stance, delivered directly to the public, confirms the expectation of continued political friction, a governing style rooted in confrontation rather than consensus. For markets, this translates into an ongoing period of heightened political risk, impacting everything from fiscal policy to regulatory stability, and demanding a defensive posture from investors.
[email protected]
**Market Impact**
The immediate market impact of President Trump’s post-midterm defiance is a sustained elevation of the political risk premium, particularly for U.S. equities and the U.S. dollar. The initial “relief rally” based on expectations of tempered policy has evaporated, replaced by renewed uncertainty. Investors should anticipate continued volatility, especially around legislative deadlines, debt ceiling debates, and any new executive actions. Sectors sensitive to trade policy, such as industrials, technology with complex supply chains, and agriculture, are likely to face headwinds as the administration signals a more aggressive, unilateral approach. Defense stocks, however, might see continued support amid elevated geopolitical rhetoric. The prospect of sustained legislative gridlock means that major fiscal reforms, infrastructure spending, or significant tax changes are unlikely, leading to a “wait-and-see” approach for businesses planning long-term investments. Bond yields may remain pressured by political instability, while safe-haven assets could see increased demand. Overall, investor sentiment will likely remain cautious, prioritizing capital preservation over aggressive growth plays until greater policy clarity and political stability emerge.